It’s worth nothing that the the Tokina 11-16mm is a 1.4× zoom and the Nikon 14-24mm is a 2x, it’s very apparent in the following photos that the difference between 11mm and 16mm is quite small. As someone who’s been known to take the odd landscape I have to say there are very few times where a cheaper prime wouldn’t be just as good.

In the case of landscape, or architectural photography when a manual focus lens would do, one with an accurate focusing scale would be preferable to one without. Focusing without a scale can make it difficult to focus at the hyperfocal distance, giving you more foreground working space. If you’re shooting things that move, get something that auto focuses.

I’m not saying the Tokina is a bad lens at all; lots of people love this lens, but I personally wasn’t impressed enough to hand over my own cash for it because for the kind of things I like to do, it just wasn’t right. It’d either need to be wide, or faster. If it were say 11-16 f/2 I’d be all over it.

If I didn't have the 18-55mm on my kit lens I think I'd be a lot warmer to it, or maybe if it were an f/1.8 or lower.
You have to admit though that that this Tokina is neither a lot wider than, or narrower than a 14mm prime. That said, all the autofocus 14mm primes I can think of are more money so it's a moot point if you need AF.
The flip side of that is all the 14mm primes I can think of are also full frame, so you'd have to consider them in that case like a 9.3mm crop sensor lens.